I May Just Have to Buy an iPhone Now

[denverpilot]

Twists:

Yesterday Goggle CEO put out a "me too" release. Hilarious coming from the company most dedicated to gathering personal data on the planet.

A North Carolina senator has announced his intention to introduce legislation to criminalize Apple's refusal.

 

[Sundancer]

And the gov would be like a petulant child "but, but, we want tools to hack everyone's phones!"

You're a special type of stupid if you think this gov push on Apple has jack to do with the California nut job.

I'm having a hard time picturing Apple as the white-hat protector of privacy, given their sweep of as much of their customer's activity as they can lay hands on. Same-same for Google and MS.

The Feds have legal limitations on mucking with your info - Apple, Google, MS. don't. Of course, the Feds are mostly incompetent to actually protect it, or even implement the most basic best-practices (OPM, IRS, FBI, DHS, etc.).

 

[denverpilot]

Articles came out today that Apple has assisted in the iOS 7 days with 70 documented cases of providing law enforcement information from locked iPhones.

It would appear that they decided to completely "get out of that business" by locking themselves out of customer's iPhone data by encrypting it. They wanted to be able to sell the devices worldwide and knew if they had the keys to the data, their customers wouldn't buy in many places on the globe. Maybe including here.

 

[James331]

I'm having a hard time picturing Apple as the white-hat protector of privacy, given their sweep of as much of their customer's activity as they can lay hands on. Same-same for Google and MS.

The Feds have legal limitations on mucking with your info - Apple, Google, MS. don't. Of course, the Feds are mostly incompetent to actually protect it, or even implement the most basic best-practices (OPM, IRS, FBI, DHS, etc.).

But I have yet to see Apple suit up like the millitary and murder anyone, lock anyone in a cage, water board anyone, or force me to give them 25% of my income at the threat of being kidnaped and locked in a box somewhere or murdered if I don't go along with the aforementioned kidnapping.

And as far as the Feds limitations, all they have to do is use the "t word" and all those limitations go away, heck they don't even have to show their "proof". Most times that's not even required in the stacked system we have now.

Yeah apple is ultimately only responsible to their share holders, but I still trust them much more then the government. Apples motives are clear as a for profit group, the us government is a little more murky and a lot more dangerous then even the worst criminals.

 

[orange]

I have a hard time understanding how any American can be against the gov't trying to force Apple to do what needs to be done in order to gain access to that phone when it may very well save lives in the future.

Would your opinion be different if you though/knew that an attack is planned on your city and the info on that phone will help the authorities prevent it from happening?

I'm all about my rights but have 2 points on the issue: 1. If you are a f'n terrorist, you give up your rights, and 2. I'm willing to relax some of the my rights during periods of threats to national security. I understand this can be a slippery slope but I'd rather be safe than sorry.

I have nothing to hide, so let the government track me, listen to my calls, read my emails, I'm not criminal and I have no worries. Those who do, well there might be a reason for that. And it's not about violating rights.

To those of you who believe that the government is using our fear of terrorism to get what they want when no real threat exists need to wake up. There is a very real threat that the general public knows NOTHING. One of my childhood friends who I trust is an FBI field agent. He and I have spoken about this a few times. For each of the times that we see on the news when the feds make a big arrest and stop a potential attack, there are probably 5 that go unreported. This is a war no doubt, but it would not be wise for the public to know everything.

 

[James331]

What if your government decides for whatever reason that YOURE a terrorist?

And yeah, even if I knew (which is impossible) something was going to happen, I wouldn't give up, or "relax" my rights..whatever that's sposed to mean. Troops know that people are going to shoot at them, do they just tuck tail and run or surrender? No, they fight back!

My rights are worth more than your "saftey".

You give up your rights, we might as well lower all the American flags and broadcast our surrender, because that's exactly what you do when you allow a "terrorist" a nut job or a power crazy government worker to dictate how you live your life and what rights you are "allowed" to have.

You have a constitution or your don't, your rights are rights, not suggestions, they are not given to you by government, they are yours at birth, you do more damage than 100 9/11 attacks when you give up those rights, frankly anyone who votes to try to take my rights away from me is much more of a "terrorist" then any nut job with a AK.

 

[N801BH]

What if your government decides for whatever reason that YOURE a terrorist?

And yeah, even if I knew (which is impossible) something was going to happen, I wouldn't give up, or "relax" my rights..whatever that's sposed to mean. Troops know that people are going to shoot at them, do they just tuck tail and run or surrender? No, they fight back!

My rights are worth more than your "saftey".

You give up your rights, we might as well lower all the American flags and broadcast our surrender, because that's exactly what you do when you allow a "terrorist" a nut job or a power crazy government worker to dictate how you live your life and what rights you are "allowed" to have.

You have a constitution or your don't, your rights are rights, not suggestions, they are not given to you by government, they are yours at birth, you do more damage than 100 9/11 attacks when you give up those rights, frankly anyone who votes to try to take my rights away from me is much more of a "terrorist" then any nut job with a AK.

 

[1RTK1]

If government turns to the dark side and becomes nothing less than tyrannical and uses this against its citizenry how is a society to combat this.
I believe the founding fathers wrote the constitution to prevent this way back when.

 

[Kritchlow]

What if your government decides for whatever reason that YOURE a terrorist?

And yeah, even if I knew (which is impossible) something was going to happen, I wouldn't give up, or "relax" my rights..whatever that's sposed to mean. Troops know that people are going to shoot at them, do they just tuck tail and run or surrender? No, they fight back!

My rights are worth more than your "saftey".

You give up your rights, we might as well lower all the American flags and broadcast our surrender, because that's exactly what you do when you allow a "terrorist" a nut job or a power crazy government worker to dictate how you live your life and what rights you are "allowed" to have.

You have a constitution or your don't, your rights are rights, not suggestions, they are not given to you by government, they are yours at birth, you do more damage than 100 9/11 attacks when you give up those rights, frankly anyone who votes to try to take my rights away from me is much more of a "terrorist" then any nut job with a AK.

This is nonsense. The government went through the legal process of gaining a court order to access the phone. It is not the government that isn't following the rules, it's Apple.

 

[1RTK1]

This is nonsense. The government went through the legal process of gaining a court order to access the phone. It is not the government that isn't following the rules, it's Apple.

The problem is the "government" doesn't always follow the rules as set forth by the constitution, this has been proven many times over.

 

[Kritchlow]

The problem is the "government" doesn't always follow the rules as set forth by the constitution, this has been proven many times over.

That may be true, but what makes this case any different than any other court order or warrant? (From a privacy standpoint).

 

[James331]

That may be true, but what makes this case any different than any other court order or warrant? (From a privacy standpoint).

It's not about THIS one phone, yeah they got a warrant, go crazy on the nut jobs phone for all I care.

The issue is with the government trying to force Apple to give them the keys to ALL OF OUR PHONES.

They got a warrant for HIS phone NOT MY PHONE, they should be be given tools to unlock my phone, your phone or anyone else phone.

If you believe that if Apple made such a tool and gave it to the government that it wouldn't be misused like crazy, well you need to read up on the governments antics, or maybe just read up on what Snowden said...

 

[1RTK1]

That may be true, but what makes this case any different than any other court order or warrant? (From a privacy standpoint).

Correct, "if" they always followed this process it would not be a problem. Unfortunately it makes people leery when at other times the laws are broken by those who are entrusted to enforce them.

 

[Kritchlow]

It's not about THIS one phone, yeah they got a warrant, go crazy on the nut jobs phone for all I care.

The issue is with the government trying to force Apple to give them the keys to ALL OF OUR PHONES.

If you believe that if Apple made such a tool and gave it to the government that it wouldn't be misused like crazy, well you need to read up on the governments antics, or maybe just read up on what Snowden said...

The court order is only for this one phone. If the only way Apple can crack it is write a program that cracks all phones, that's not the governments problem. But, could they then turn around and use it on other phones? Sure, but without a warrant it would not be legal, just like a home search without a warrant.

 

[stratobee]

There is no difference in principle between giving the government the future backdoor key to all our info vs. mandatory DNA sampling all children at birth, sampling all citizens, visitors, tourists, jews, arabs, blacks, caucasians and storing it in a database and then just matching it to crime DNA. Efficient, yes. Unconstitutional, yes.

Be very careful what you wish for.

 

[James331]

Bingo

 

[James331]

The court order is only for this one phone. If the only way Apple can crack it is write a program that cracks all phones, that's not the governments problem. But, could they then turn around and use it on other phones? Sure, but without a warrant it would not be legal, just like a home search without a warrant.

And the fact that the government can't break the encryption isn't apples problem.

 

[Kritchlow]

And the fact that the government can't break the encryption isn't apples problem.

I was a mass murder with bodies in my home (think Jeffery Dalmer), and I have walls, a door, a lock, and windows that law enforcement can't get into. They have evidence that I'm currently torturing people inside. They can hear the screams. They have a warrant and a court order for me to open the door. I should be able just say no and be supported by the masses?

Drama added to prove my point.

 

[James331]

Uhh no, bust the door down and help.

...But the government shouldn't also be allowed to kick down every other door in the nation too.

 

[1RTK1]

I was a mass murder with bodies in my home (think Jeffery Dalmer), and I have walls, a door, a lock, and windows that law enforcement can't get into. They have evidence that I'm currently torturing people inside. They can hear the screams. They have a warrant and a court order for me to open the door. I should be able just say no and be supported by the masses?

Drama added to prove my point.

In that case it is the governments problem to figure how to get in, not the builder of the house to provide easy access.
They have been given the right to ingress, but have not been given the right to force the builder to let them in.

 

[Kritchlow]

In that case it is the governments problem to figure how to get in, not the builder of the house to provide easy access.

Even if the builder has a court order to do just that?

But, indeed that's beside the point. The main issue hear is privacy, not whose problem it is.

 

[Kritchlow]

Uhh no, bust the door down and help.

...But the government shouldn't also be allowed to kick down every other door in the nation too.

As I strongly implied, they can't break it down.

 

[eetrojan]

I was a mass murder with bodies in my home (think Jeffery Dalmer), and I have walls, a door, a lock, and windows that law enforcement can't get into. They have evidence that I'm currently torturing people inside. They can hear the screams. They have a warrant and a court order for me to open the door. I should be able just say no and be supported by the masses?

Drama added to prove my point.

Need to modify your analogy a bit to make it fit better.

You’re a mass murder with bodies in your home (think Jeffery Dalmer), and you have walls, a door, a lock, and windows that law enforcement can't get into. They have evidence that you’re currently torturing people inside. They can hear the screams. You have an alarm system from AAA Alarm that sells alarms and doesn’t murder people.

OK -> They get a warrant and a court order for you to open the door. They knock on the door and you let them in. They kick the door down. They smoke you out. Whatever. All OK.

Not OK -> They ask AAA Alarm to write special software for them that lets them disable the alarm system so that they can easily gain access to your home. AAA refuses because it could be used against other customer systems. They get a court order requiring AAA Alarm company to write the software anyway.

They need to find another way.

 

[1RTK1]

Even if the builder has a court order to do just that?

.

Then by "law" the builder would have to provide the key.

If the builder were smart they would make/build it so no "key" is available to them or anyone else.

 

[Caramon13]

I was a mass murder with bodies in my home (think Jeffery Dalmer), and I have walls, a door, a lock, and windows that law enforcement can't get into. They have evidence that I'm currently torturing people inside. They can hear the screams. They have a warrant and a court order for me to open the door. I should be able just say no and be supported by the masses?

Drama added to prove my point.

I don't really see the correlation between this and the current situation, sorry.

There is no proof that anything of value is on that phone, unlike your situation where there would be exigent circumstances (aka you can HEAR the screaming that correlates to torture) that would allow the police to proceed.

Law & Order gas leak anyone? <- humor

So let's say they do cave and go in and find a video of dancing bears that was on the phone that the killers just watched for 18 minutes. You're saying that video of dancing bears is worth my privacy?

Screw that, provide some proof that something is actually THERE before you go looking for it.

What is this, the whole nuclear missiles the middle east all over again? It was wrong then, and it's still wrong now.

 

[Kritchlow]

Need to modify your analogy a bit to make it fit better.

You’re a mass murder with bodies in your home (think Jeffery Dalmer), and you have walls, a door, a lock, and windows that law enforcement can't get into. They have evidence that you’re currently torturing people inside. They can hear the screams. You have an alarm system from AAA Alarm that sells alarms and doesn’t murder people.

OK -> They get a warrant and a court order for you to open the door. They knock on the door and you let them in. They kick the door down. They smoke you out. Whatever. All OK.

Not OK -> They ask AAA Alarm to write special software for them that lets them disable the alarm system so that they can easily gain access to your home. AAA refuses because it could be used against other customer systems. They get a court order requiring AAA Alarm company to write the software anyway.

They need to find another way.

Modify yours...

It's an apartment. The owner of the apartment asks AAA alarm to break the code. In addition, the courts order them to do so.

 

[James331]

As I strongly implied, they can't break it down.

Not all the baby turtles make it to the ocean.

 

[Kritchlow]

I don't really see the correlation between this and the current situation, sorry.

There is no proof that anything of value is on that phone, unlike your situation where there would be exigent circumstances (aka you can HEAR the screaming that correlates to torture) that would allow the police to proceed.

Law & Order gas leak anyone? <- humor

So let's say they do cave and go in and find a video of dancing bears that was on the phone that the killers just watched for 18 minutes. You're saying that video of dancing bears is worth my privacy?

Screw that, provide some proof that something is actually THERE before you go looking for it.

What is this, the whole nuclear missiles the middle east all over again? It was wrong then, and it's still wrong now.

We don't know what proof there is. It is obviously enough to get a court order, which does require a standard.

Regardless, the owner of the phone approved. No warrant even necessary.

 

[denverpilot]

To those of you who believe that the government is using our fear of terrorism to get what they want when no real threat exists need to wake up. There is a very real threat that the general public knows NOTHING. One of my childhood friends who I trust is an FBI field agent. He and I have spoken about this a few times. For each of the times that we see on the news when the feds make a big arrest and stop a potential attack, there are probably 5 that go unreported. This is a war no doubt, but it would not be wise for the public to know everything.

It's only "not wise" because he and his pals treat the genpop like sheeple, instead of adults. If there's a "war", then declare it and get on with it.

Pretending the U.S. Citizenry can't handle truth, creates a bigger problem than the one he's fighting. He undermines his own credibility with everyone who isn't a personal friend (you) by saying he can tell *you*, but he and his bosses can't come clean with *everyone else*.

You see that, right?

Real adults know the world isn't a pretty place, but his secrecy CREATES the scenario where the genpop would be panicking if they heard the truth.

Screw him and his "5 that go unreported".

Involve the Citizenry or we'll remove your budget and limit you. That's how the system is *supposed* to work here.

So the world is a **** sandwich... so what? We'll happily give you the budget to go clean up, if you're not fighting a "war" in the shadows. We've seen how badly our government screws those up... EVERY time.

 

[RJM62]

I have a hard time understanding how any American can be against the gov't trying to force Apple to do what needs to be done in order to gain access to that phone when it may very well save lives in the future.

So would outlawing cars. And airplanes. And showers. Roughly 5,000 people die in shower and bathtub falls every year.

Would your opinion be different if you though/knew that an attack is planned on your city and the info on that phone will help the authorities prevent it from happening?

No. And by the way, I lived in NYC and watched the towers fall on 9/11. Seven of my friends died in the attacks, including one I knew since childhood. Giving up my rights for an illusion of safety would dishonor their memories.

I'm all about my rights but have 2 points on the issue: 1. If you are a f'n terrorist, you give up your rights,

Actually, no. Have you heard of the Constitution? It even applies to bad people. No, really. It does.

and 2. I'm willing to relax some of the my rights during periods of threats to national security.

Then feel free to do so. Just leave my rights alone, thank you.

I understand this can be a slippery slope but I'd rather be safe than sorry.

To each his own. I'd rather be free than safe.

I have nothing to hide, so let the government track me, listen to my calls, read my emails, I'm not criminal and I have no worries.

Well good for you. (Actually, you probably commit several felonies every day if you're like most Americans, but there is enough to be said for blissful ignorance that I won't go there.)

Those who do, well there might be a reason for that. And it's not about violating rights.

I'm sorry, I missed the part about your being all-knowing. I wasn't aware that God was part of our lowly forum.

To those of you who believe that the government is using our fear of terrorism to get what they want when no real threat exists need to wake up. There is a very real threat that the general public knows NOTHING.

There's that omniscience thing again...

One of my childhood friends who I trust is an FBI field agent. He and I have spoken about this a few times. For each of the times that we see on the news when the feds make a big arrest and stop a potential attack, there are probably 5 that go unreported. This is a war no doubt, but it would not be wise for the public to know everything.

Your friend is a felon if he revealed that information to you. Unless of course it's not true, in which case he's just a bull**** artist.

Rich

 

[wsuffa]

Articles came out today that Apple has assisted in the iOS 7 days with 70 documented cases of providing law enforcement information from locked iPhones.

It would appear that they decided to completely "get out of that business" by locking themselves out of customer's iPhone data by encrypting it. They wanted to be able to sell the devices worldwide and knew if they had the keys to the data, their customers wouldn't buy in many places on the globe. Maybe including here.

We don't know the vintage of those phones. If they're older models that are not encrypted, and have no "self destruct" feature, then it is a substantially different case. The use of encryption makes this a much different situation.

Use a passphrase, not a sequence of 4 or 6 numbers. With encryption turned on.

 

[stratobee]

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."

- Martin Niemöller

 

[RJM62]

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."

- Martin Niemöller

And most of it was done in complete accordance with the law.

Rich

 

[James331]

Exactly.

 

[dmspilot]

Secret Memo Details U.S.’s Broader Strategy to Crack Phones

 

[eetrojan]

Modify yours...

It's an apartment. The owner of the apartment asks AAA alarm to break the code. In addition, the courts order them to do so.

We don't know what proof there is. It is obviously enough to get a court order, which does require a standard.

Regardless, the owner of the phone approved. No warrant even necessary.

Hmmm. OK.

If you're point is that a court can order AAA to do something for law enforcement because AAA could voluntarily agree to do that same something for the owner, then we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[Kritchlow]

Hmmm. OK.

If you're point is that a court can order AAA to do something for law enforcement because AAA could voluntarily agree to do that same something for the owner, then we'll have to agree to disagree.

Not exactly...

But even using what you're saying, this happens often. Automobile recalls, food recalls, aircraft AD's are all examples of things that the manufacturer could voluntarily do, but at times takes the heavy hand of government to actually happen.

 

[James331]

Apples to oranges.

A AD and giving the government the keys to all law abiding citizens private data, are to very different things.

 

[paflyer]

What if your government decides for whatever reason that YOURE a terrorist?

And yeah, even if I knew (which is impossible) something was going to happen, I wouldn't give up, or "relax" my rights..whatever that's sposed to mean. Troops know that people are going to shoot at them, do they just tuck tail and run or surrender? No, they fight back!

My rights are worth more than your "saftey".

You give up your rights, we might as well lower all the American flags and broadcast our surrender, because that's exactly what you do when you allow a "terrorist" a nut job or a power crazy government worker to dictate how you live your life and what rights you are "allowed" to have.

You have a constitution or your don't, your rights are rights, not suggestions, they are not given to you by government, they are yours at birth, you do more damage than 100 9/11 attacks when you give up those rights, frankly anyone who votes to try to take my rights away from me is much more of a "terrorist" then any nut job with a AK.

Well put.

 

[paflyer]

The court order is only for this one phone. If the only way Apple can crack it is write a program that cracks all phones, that's not the governments problem. But, could they then turn around and use it on other phones? Sure, but without a warrant it would not be legal, just like a home search without a warrant.

Warrants are issued with a big rubber stamp. Open your freaking eyes, dude.